You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION TO THE THERAPISTS BY CONDITIONING FATHER’S VISITATION ON HIS PARTICIPATION IN THERAPEUTIC COUNSELING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should not have conditioned father’s visitation upon his participation in therapeutic counseling because the condition effectively delegated the court’s power to order visitation to the therapists:

… [T]he court erred in conditioning the father’s visitation upon his participation in therapeutic counseling. “Although a court may include a directive to obtain counseling as a component of a custody or visitation order, the court does not have the authority to order such counseling as a prerequisite to custody or visitation”… . Here, the court erred in making participation in counseling the “triggering event” in determining visitation … . We further conclude that the court impermissibly delegated the decision to hold family therapy sessions to the father’s and the child’s therapists and therefore improperly gave the therapists the authority to determine if and when visitation would occur… . We therefore modify the order by vacating the sixth, seventh, and eighth ordering paragraphs, and we remit the matter to Family Court to fashion a specific and definitive schedule for visitation between the father and the subject child. Matter of Rice v Wightman, 2018 NY Slip Op 08813, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

You might also like
NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL COUPLED WITH POLICE OFFICER’S OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION JUSTIFYING DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT.
VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT SURROGATE’S COURT’S FINDING THAT THERE WAS A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND THE DECEDENT AND THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS EXERTED UNDUE INFLUENCE UPON DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE STATING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) THAT COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND ANNOUNCING READINESS FOR TRIAL; IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW OF COMPLAINANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO ALERT THE PEOPLE TO THE DEFECT IN THE COC; MATTER REMITTED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION; EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF MISSED A STEP AND WAS THEREFORE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GUARDIAN SHOULD BE APPOINTED FOR... INCARCERATION AFTER A PROBATION VIOLATION IN THIS VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE...